Measuring Food Safety Indicators To Achieve Sustainable Development Goals

Measuring
food safety
Indicators to achieve
9
sustainable development
goals (SDGs)
FOOD SAFETY
TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Measuring
food safety
Indicators to achieve
9
sustainable development
goals (SDGs)
FOOD SAFETY
TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Bangkok, 2021
FAO. 2021. Measuring food safety – Indicators to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Food safety technical toolkit for Asia and the Pacific No. 9. Bangkok.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these
have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in
preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
© FAO, 2021
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO;
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this license, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-
commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there
should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services.
The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the
same or equivalent Creative Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it must include
the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the
content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the license shall be conducted in accordance with
the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
as at present in force.
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party,
such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed
for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from
infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website
(www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.
Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request.
Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
Abstract
Universal access to safe food is a key requirement for the 2030
Agenda for the Sustainable Development Goals. And yet an estimated
600 million people each year fall sick from eating unsafe food and
420 000 of them die. Safe food is also critical for economic
development and the international food trade.
Setting and measuring food security indicators have significantly
contributed to improving and communicating progress in achieving
food security. Considering their success, several countries in Asia and
the Pacific region have asked the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO) to provide guidance on the development
of food safety indicators. Following a comprehensive review and a
technical consultation on the topic, a pilot project was developed in
four countries to establish food safety indicators that fit their country
contexts and objectives. The pilot project confirmed the usefulness of
food safety indicators in strengthening national food control systems.
In contrast to other types of indicators, food safety indicators were not
found to be suitable for benchmarking capacities among countries.
The regional guide to develop food safety indicators aims to provide

countries with technical advice to develop national food safety
indicators that serve country-specific objectives. By reading the guide,
food safety competent authorities will be equipped with instruments
and experience based tips to effectively develop and use food safety
indicators, and to tailor them to fit their countries’ contexts.
Keywords
Food safety, indicators, measurement, country, data, results, food
control, specific, guide, systematic approach, core team, surveillance,
monitoring, consultation, stakeholders, food safety competent authority,
capacity development, Codex Alimentarius, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Asia and the Pacific.
iii
Contents
Abstract iii
Keywords iv
Acknowledgements vii
Abbreviations and acronyms viii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 What are food safety indicators 2
1.3 Objectives of the guide 4
1.4 Target audience 5
1.5 Effective use of the guide 5
2. A step-by-step guide 6
2.1. Formulate a core team 6
2.2 Review the regional pool of food safety 6
indicator areas
2.3 Collect key references 11
2.4 Obtain a management support from the 13
planning team’s agency/ministry
2.5 Prepare for a stakeholder consultation process 14
2.5.1 Take a collaborative approach 14
2.5.2 Draft a few options for a proposed 14
desired outcome
2.6 Initiate the multi-agency consultation process 17
2.6.1 Inform and involve relevant stakeholders 17
2.6.2 Prepare for a kick-off meeting 18
2.6.3 Conduct a kick-off meeting 22
iv
2.7 Develop national food safety indicators 25
2.7.1 Document and share the finalized desired 25
outcomes for the country
2.7.2 Define the desired use of the results 26
measured by the indicators
2.7.3 Review and refine the draft set of national 27
food safety indicators
2.7.4 Share and finalize the national food 28
safety indicators
2.8 Measure the baselines 34
2.8.1 Define the use of the baseline data 36
2.8.2 Document the interpretation of the 37
baseline data
2.8.3 Documents the needs, opportunities 37
and challenges
2.9 Conduct short-term interventions 38
2.10 Measure the post-intervention data 40
2.11 Interpret the data and develop action plans 41
3. Reporting and communicating the results 42

4. Key considerations 43
4.1 Tailor the indicators to fit to the country contexts 43
4.2 Start with a few indicators 43
4.3 Do not compare the results with other countries 44
4.4 Be aware of a possible pitfall 44
4.5 Benefit from excellent side products of indicators 45
4.5.1 The process helps multi-sectoral 45
collaboration on food safety
4.5.2 The process helps identify concrete 46
prerequisite activities
4.5.3 The process helps focus on the reality 47
5. Global applications and SDG relevance 48

6. References 51
v
Boxes
Box 1. Regional pool of 40 food safety indicator areas 7
Box 2. References from international bodies 12
and organizations
Box 3. Examples of desired outcomes 15
Box 4. Successful examples in involving stakeholders 18
Box 5. Sample agenda for the kick-off meeting 19
Box 6. Points to include in the invitation letter to nominate 20
experts of the technical working group
Box 7. Sample terms of reference for the technical 21
working group
Box 8. Examples of draft indicators 23
Box 9. Examples of possible uses of the results of 27
Box 10. Baseline measurement for the indicator 34
on the number of food inspectors per
slaughterhouse in Country A
Box 11. Guiding questions to define the use of baseline data 35
Box 12. Baseline measurement for an indicator on the 36
number of outbreaks and food contamination
cases in Country D
Box 13. A lesson learned in realizing prerequisite 38
activities in Country B
Box 14. Examples of short-term interventions 39
Tables
Table 1. The SMART+UP criteria to select the 28
national food safety indicators
Table 2. An example template for the national 29
Table 3. Examples of the finalised food safety 30
indicators from the pilot projects
Measuring food safety –

vi Indicators to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Acknowledgements
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
would like to express its appreciation to the many people who
contributed to this document. This guide was drafted by Isabella
Apruzzese and further developed and finalized by Masami Takeuchi,
who designed the document structure and managed the initiative of
food safety indicators in the region of Asia and the Pacific at FAO.
The objectives and the direction of FAO food safety indicators initiative
were arrived at through wide consultations with various food safety
experts, particularly the 84 experts from 18 Asian and six Pacific Island
countries who participated in the first consultative meeting held in
Singapore in December 2017. Based on the recommendations,
four countries, namely Bhutan, China, Cook Islands and the Philippines,
volunteered to participate in the regional food safety indicator pilot
project. This document would not have been possible without the
insights and advice provided by those countries’ counterparts in
government agencies, stakeholders who were involved in the pilot
projects, and experts.
In particular, FAO would like to thank Sithar Dorjee (Bhutan), Gyem Bhida
(Bhutan), Fan YongXiang (China), Claire Ding Hao (China), Josephine
Aumea Herman (Cook Islands) Claytoncy Taurarii (Cook Islands),
Pedro Dumaraos (Philippines) Edna Zenaida Villacorte (the Philippines)
and Flor Viloria (Philippines) for their dedication and efforts to produce
excellent pilot project outputs.
We gratefully acknowledge the technical inputs provided by various FAO

colleagues, including Chadho Tenzin, Fu Rong, Joseph Nyemah,
Rafael Umbrero, Jeffrey Oliver, Markus Lipp and Sridhar Dharmapuri.
The document has been copyedited by Robert Horn.
vii
Abbreviations and acronyms
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GAP Good agricultural practices
GHP Good hygiene practices
GMP Good manufacturing practices
HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SOPs Standard operating procedures
SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
WHO World Health Organization

viii Indicators to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Whatever gets measured, can be better managed. That principle forms
a foundation for research and work in countless fields. The use of
indicators is essential as data provides evidence for action. Food safety
indicators can be vital for national food safety competent authorities
to achieve their objectives. Their goals can range from the systematic
tracking of food safety systems to more effective communications
with relevant counterparts. Food safety indicators can help reveal
the realities of national food control systems, thus increasing the
understanding of what is needed, what programmes can be pursued,
and what priorities may be set. Finally, they can be persuasive tools
in advocating for budget allocations and in justifying plans for food
safety work.
A good example of effective indicators is the suite of food security

indicators launched in the State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012.
These were analysed and further developed in the State of Food
Insecurity in the World 2013, 2014 and 2015 reports (FAO 2012, 2013,
2014, 2015). Those indicators were formulated to capture various
aspects of food insecurity and have proven to be essential in various
dimensions, such as monitoring and evaluation, capacity development
needs assessment, and identification of priorities. As part of the
food security indicators, a global nutrition index was later created
to complete the picture of food security from the efforts towards
sustainable nutrition aligned with the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).
1
It is important to remember when setting food safety indicators that
the objective is not to set an international benchmark. Rather, food
safety indicators can be most effective when they are tailored for the
specific country context, and used within the country. In fact, food
safety indicators are sometimes considered sensitive information.
Countries have expressed strong reservations about disclosing
results that indicate “insufficiency” of national food control systems.
By comparison, they do not generally react that way regarding food
security or nutrition indicators. In addition, food safety indicators may
not necessarily be simplified to set any quantifiable goal to be achieved
at the international level. In other words, there are no standardized or
harmonized thresholds for any measurable elements of food safety
control and management. This is because there is no precise definition
for food safety indicators, meaning that different people and groups
can interpret them differently. At the same time, many food safety
competent authorities stressed that nobody is interested in disclosing
the detailed comparisons of the food safety situations among different
countries. The unwanted label of “unsafe food situations” attributed to
a country is the worst case of how to use food safety indicators.
That label will have a direct and negative impact on trade, tourism
and economies.
1.2 What are food safety indicators

What exactly are food safety indicators? They can be referred as to
a methodology that could be used to serve a country’s particular
purpose in the area of food safety. The fact that they are oriented to
each singular purpose makes food safety indicators an important tool
for the work on food safety.
In Codex Alimentarius’s “Principles and guidelines for monitoring the

performance of national food control systems,” indicators are described
in the context of national food control systems. The document
recommends establishing such indicators to achieve effective outcomes
for effective national food control systems. The document defines the
indicators as:

2 Indicators to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Quantitative variable or qualitative factor that provides
a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to
reflect the changes connected to activities, or to help
assess the performance of a programme or system
(FAO and WHO, 2017).
Along with Codex Alimentarius, the World Health Organization

(WHO) also refers to indicators for food safety in the context of a joint
external evaluation, through which international health regulations are
implemented and monitored:

Indicators refer to detection and responding to the food-
related events and enabling environment for putting food
safety control mechanisms in place with appropriate
legislation, laws, or policies and with the involvement
of multiple sectors (WHO, 2005).
The Codex and WHO definitions make it clear that food safety
indicators, unlike food security and nutrition indicators, refer to
methodologies or approaches rather than numbers to achieve. Food
security and nutrition indicators are designed to classify the availability,
access, utilization and stability of foods and their nutrition power.
In 2017, FAO conducted an initial consultation on the establishement

of food safety indicators. International experts met to draw up a list of
food safety areas, with the purpose of understanding if data could be
generated and collected.1 The FAO technical paper provides essential
elements that can be considered by food safety experts from the region
to determine 1) whether or not a set of regional food safety indicators is
useful; 2) what types of regional and national food safety indicators can
be useful; 3) what criteria can be used in selecting regional and national
food safety indicators; and 4) how regional food safety indicators can
be used.
1 Fortyareas were identified and are contained in the FAO Technical Paper called
“Measuring food safety: food safety indicators for Asia and the Pacific,” which is available
online as an annex to the report of the consultation (FAO, 2017) and available at
http://www.fao.org/3/i9459en/I9459EN.pdf.
Introduction 3
One key emerging element of the consultations and technical papers is
that food safety indicators can be scalable and flexible to achieve the
different desired outcomes of each country. Defining the outcome is key.
Without a well-defined outcome, the purpose of the indicators becomes
blurred, and their efficacy would be null. Along with the desired
outcomes, the results obtained through the indicators are not meant
to stand alone. They require a thorough interpretation to determine
subsequent actions in a process of continuous growth towards the
desired outcomes.
Currently, a list of 40 food safety indicator areas exists (Box 1), and
it is frequently referred to in this guide. This list was one outcome
of the “Regional consultation on food safety indicators for Asia and
the Pacific” of 2017. First, all 139 existing food safety indicators from
literature and texts of Codex Alimentarius and international health
regulations were identified and considered.2 Then, international experts
discussed each indicator and agreed on a final selection of 40.
The selected indicators were used as the basis of four pilot projects
in different countries in Asia and the Pacific that further validated
their relevance.
1.3 Objectives of the guide

This guide aims at providing countries with the building blocks to
develop their own food safety indicators. It offers a set of tools to
national food safety competent authorities to establish food safety
indicators, including a good understanding regarding practical actions
and a thorough understanding of what can be done and not done
through food safety indicators. The guide also highlights how national
food control systems can benefit from implementing food safety
indicators in terms of improvements in food safety and the
sustainability of their application. The results are a worthwhile
investment for countries.
2 This comprehensive list is reported in the FAO Technical Paper “Measuring food safety:
food safety indicators for Asia and the Pacific” and available at
http://www.fao.org/3/i9459en/I9459EN.pdf.

1.4 Target audience
This guide is geared towards national food safety competent
authorities in Asia and the Pacific, providing them with all the necessary
instruments to develop, establish and implement food safety indicators.
1.5 Effective use of the guide

The guide is most effective if it is used with a clear understanding
that indicators themselves do not provide any final results: food
safety indicators are tools to achieve an outcome. This guide presents
a step-by-step process to establish food safety indicators, and to
measure them with and without interventions. The paper also presents
explanations and examples from four different countries that have
piloted the development of food safety indicators. The four countries
vary widely in their capacities and were chosen to illustrate how food
safety indicators are an approach that can be scalable to
different realities.
75°
C
Introduction 5
2 A step-by-step guide
2.1 Formulate a core team

The first suggested step would be to recruit a core team to work on
formulating and implementing national food safety indicators. As food
safety is a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary topic, a small planning
team of three to five technical officers working in the relevant agencies,
including a food safety competent authority, should be involved. The
planning team facilitates the delivery of the outputs throughout the
establishment and implementation of food safety indicators, and it can
function as the secretariat for required meetings during the process.
2.2 Review the regional pool

of food safety indicator areas
The next suggested step would be to compile a list of the food safety
indicator areas outlined in previous expert work. FAO has consolidated
a total of 40 food safety indicator areas as a regional pool for Asia and
the Pacific based on expert opinions from two regional consultations
with four pilot projects. In each area, many different indicators can
be developed, depending on different purposes, priorities and the
measurement feasibility in various country contexts (Box 1).
Each core team member conducts an individual review, then engages

in a group discussion about the effectiveness of each, and completes
the review process. It is important that each member understands 1) the
areas identified as priorities, 2) the indicators that can be important for
the country, and 3) the indicators that are already measurable with the
existing data and information in their national context.

Box 1. Regional pool of 40 food safety indicator areas
Food safety competent authorities and partners

1. Presence of a leading food safety agency (entity) to drive the
coordination work to ensure food safety.
2. Food safety relevant agencies have clearly defined roles and
responsibilities for food control management.
3. The competent authority is supported by necessary
infrastructure and adequate resources (e.g. human and financial
resources, and lab equipment and materials).
Policy, legal and regulatory framework
4. The presence of enabling national policy and legal and
regulatory frameworks that are consistent with international
standards, guidelines and best practices (including legally
embedded criteria for executing food recall and traceability)
and that show government commitment to protect public
health and ensure fair practices in food trade.
Principles of the national food control systems
5. Food control systems are integrated into one national food
control system that covers the entire food chain (farm-to-table).
6. The national food control system is implemented in a
transparent manner with mechanisms for information, education,
communication and coordination with relevant stakeholders.
7. Risk analysis paradigms are used by the competent authority
to inform and support risk-based, science-based and
evidence-based decision-making and establish food safety
control measures with a mechanism for expert consultation to
advise government on food safety risk assessment.
Codex and functions with other international bodies

and platforms
8. Existence of National Codex Committee with allocated budget.
9. Level of engagement in the work of Codex.
A step-by-step guide 7
(Cont.)
10. Ability to meet and demonstrate compliance with international

food safety and quality requirements and obligations
(e.g. Codex standards, World Trade Organization SPS
agreement and requirements of trade partners).
11. Credible functioning of national contact points for Codex,
World Organisation for Animal Health, International Plant
Protection Convention and other relevant international
organizations and platforms (e.g. the International Food Safety
Authorities Network) with required resources.
Food inspection
12. Criteria for risk categorization and prioritization established for
food inspection.
13. Presence of functioning risk-based food inspection mechanisms
with well-defined standard operating procedures (SOPs).
14. Number of food inspectors (per population) trained on official
food control.
15. Number of inspections being conducted for infrastructure,
installations and hygiene throughout the farm-to-fork food
chain (primary production, processing, distribution, hotels and
restaurants and community kitchens).
Food safety certification
16. Presence of functioning food safety certification systems with
well-defined SOPs.
Testing and analysis
17. Presence of and access to capable diagnostic and analytical
laboratories with well-defined SOPs.
18. Presence of and access to accredited food-testing laboratories
with well-defined SOPs.
Notifications
19. Presence of notification mechanisms on food safety incidents
and outbreaks.
20. Presence of notification mechanisms on food recalls.

(Cont.)
Support to self-checking systems

21. Presence of monitoring and verification mechanisms by the
government on self-checking systems of producers, processors,
food industries and food business operators throughout the
food chain.
22. A recognition system for the producers, processors, food
industries and food business operators implementing good
food safety practices.
23. Presence of effective guidelines for developing good SOPs and
instructions concerning good agricultural practices (GAP),
good manufacturing practices (GMP), good hygiene practices
(GHP), and hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP).
Food monitoring, health surveillance and epidemiology
24. Mechanisms are established and functioning for detecting
foodborne diseases and contamination.
25. Existence of One Health disease surveillance systems
(animal plant, human and environmental health).
26. Number of outbreaks of foodborne illness reported:
a. Salmonellosis in humans;
b. Listeriosis in humans.
27. Percentage of reported occurrences in which the
presence/contamination of hazards are identified (biological,
chemical, physical) in all types of food and feed from farm
to fork [or, Percentage of commodities (food or animal feed)
that comply with regulations, such as maximum residue limits,
pertaining to pesticides, pesticide residues, veterinary drug
residues, food additives, mycotoxins, heavy metals, radiological
substances and key chemical, microbiological and physical or
non-food contaminants]:
a. Salmonella spp. in food (specify a commodity for
an indicator);
b. E. coli in food (specify a commodity for an indicator);
c. Listeria monocytogenes in food (specify a commodity for
an indicator).
(Cont.)
Data collection, collation and interpretation

28. Institution(s) exists that is responsible for the collection,
collation and interpretation of data on food safety issues
(including microbiological, chemical, natural and environmental)
at the national level.
Food safety emergency preparedness
29. National food safety emergency response capacity supported
by a national plan/guidelines/rapid alert system, which state
responsibilities, relevant parties and necessary systems and
actions including traceability and food recalls.
Information, education, communication and trainings
30. Risk-based education and trainings for food business operators
related to hygiene and food safety are mandated and provided.
31. All stakeholders from farm to fork, including consumers, are
reached in food safety information activities and are aware
of the potential problems and risks related to hygiene and
food safety.
Shared responsibility – industry, producers, processors, food

business operators
32. Percentage of producers, traders and food business operators
implementing documented self-checking food safety
management system, such as good SOPs on GAP, GMP, GHP,
HACCP or any others in accordance with the local context.
33. Percentage of food establishments from farm to fork displaying
information, education and communication materials or signs
on hygiene and food safety within their premises.
34. Percentage of producers, processors, traders and food
business operators that have implemented a functioning
traceability system.
35. Percentage of food establishments complying with labelling
requirements including allergen risk indications.
Access to potable water
36. Percentage of the population with access to potable water.

(Cont.)
Public trust in food safety

37. Presence of mechanisms to understand public perception on
the national food control system.
38. Levels of public trust in food safety.
Food and feed trade
39. Percentage of reported rejections of food exports due to
food safety by importing countries.
40. Mutual recognition of equivalence systems
(e.g. Memorandum of Understanding for market access)
based on international guidelines.
2.3 Collect key references

It is a good idea to look for some examples of indicators development
that might have already been conducted in other disciplines in the
country. There may not be examples of developing food safety
indicators, but there might be some indicators for other health-related
issues. Collecting such examples would be useful for good practices
and lessons learned. If there are no examples within the country,
examples from other countries may also be useful.
Legislative references from relevant national laws and regulations as

well as international agreements, guidelines, standards and manuals
often play critical roles when it comes to determining the measurable
elements for indicators (Box 2). The list can be complemented with
laws, regulations, directives and guidelines available at the national level.
Understanding the underlying principles behind the national and

international requirements and guidelines will be instrumental in
establishing the direction and methodologies of the work and the
objectives for applying food safety indicators.
Box 2. References from international bodies and organizations
Codex Alimentarius:
• Principles and guidelines for national food control systems
(CAC/GL 82-2013) (FAO and WHO, 2013), available at:
http://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/13358/CXG_082e.pdf;
• Principles and guidelines for monitoring the performance of
national food control systems (CAC/GL 91-2017) (FAO and
WHO, 2017), available at: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-
codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%
252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%
252FCXG%2B91-2017%252FCXG_091e.pdf.
FAO:
FAO technical paper “Measuring food safety” includes:
• Chapter 1. The need and the importance of developing food
safety indicators.
• Chapter 2. Existing food safety indicators.
• Chapter 3. Criteria for selecting effective food safety indicators.
• Chapter 4. The use and applications of food safety indicators.
and available at http://www.fao.org/3/i9459en/I9459EN.pdf.
FAO food security indicators (FAO, 2020), available at

http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.
X7jTBGgzY2w.
Compendium of indicators for nutrition-sensitive agriculture

(FAO, 2016a), available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6275e.pdf.
WHO:
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Joint External Evaluation tool
(JEE tool) first edition (WHO, 2005), available at: http://apps.who.
int/iris/bitstream/10665/204368/1/9789241510172_eng.pdf?ua=1.

2.4 Obtain management support
This step is optional; however, all pilot countries reported that it was
useful. Obtaining management support, for example, from the senior
management of the core group's parent agency or ministry, is an
optional step. This would create a clear communication process with
the management and also help in advocating for the usefulness of the
indicators to improve food safety situations in the country. In order to
obtain such support, the core team could:
Make their management aware Refer to international guidance

of the benefits that could result and discussions referring to the
from the establishment of food process of relying on a tool to
safety indicators. measure food safety that aligns
with the SDGs.
Demonstrate through the collected Establish partnerships with

materials how food safety indicators relevant agencies.
could be a smart investment for the
country’s food safety.
Develop a work plan of activities

to periodically provide updates on
the progress of the work.
Support could be demonstrated through a signed letter or document

expressing the commitment from management.
2.5 Prepare for a stakeholder consultation process
2.5.1 Take a collaborative approach
It would probably be a mistake to develop and implement food safety
indicators within only one agency. A multi-agency and multi-sectoral
consultation process is almost always essential. A good collaboration
provides a great path for success. The consultation process helps
integrate existing information and data on various food safety topics
of interest. A short concept note for developing food safety indicators
could be developed by the core team, and a series of informal or
formal meetings (physical or virtual) could be held to consult various
colleagues with different backgrounds. This multi-sectoral consultation
process could discuss and determine 1) why food safety indicators
would be needed (objectives); 2) what outcome(s) would be desired
(goal-setting); and 3) how the results of measuring food safety
indicators would be practically used (outputs).
2.5.2 Draft a few options for a proposed desired outcome

The most important step of all, as explained in Chapter 1, is to set a
clear goal of defining why and how food safety indicators would be
established and used. Therefore, the core team can develop a draft
paragraph defining the desired outcome(s). At this stage, it is useful
to understand that this will likely go through further review by many
other people in the process, and so more than one option can be
proposed. Box 3 provides some examples of desired outcomes from
the pilot countries.

Box 3. Examples of desired outcomes
Country A
By developing and using food safety indicators, government
agencies, food industry and consumers in Country A acquired an
overview of their current food safety situations. By monitoring the
results regularly, improvements could be systematically reported,
which eventually provided confidence to the stakeholders in
the food safety and control system. The results, systematically
collected evidence-based, served as a cornerstone of an effective
information and communication campaign on food safety. Further
understanding and appreciation of the importance of food safety
was gained. Food safety indicators were designed to highlight the
immediate needs and areas for improvement. They were useful
to prioritize programmes and activities, particularly for capacity
development. The results could be used as inputs to develop a
strategic action plan. They were helpful in requesting appropriate
budget allocations, because they provided solid supporting data
and sound justifications.
Country B
By developing and using national food safety indicators, relevant
government agencies were able to systematically identify key food
safety issues and establish baseline information to prioritize
actions, and plan for focused future interventions.
Country C
By developing and using national food safety indicators, relevant
government agencies were able to develop evidence-based
systems to identify key areas of food safety concerns. That
helped to determine priorities for strategic and collaborative
action planning. This would also enable appropriate funding
allocations and formulation of effective awareness-raising tools
and communication strategies, including those for the national
government to communicate with the local governments.
(Cont.)
Country D
By developing food safety indicators, it will be possible:
• To examine the current food safety control system;
• For regulators, industry and universities to work together;
• To hold effective future communications;
• To draw a picture of the current food safety status;
• To examine the performance of the current food control system;
• To identify gaps and deficiencies in the system;
• To provide advice and recommendations to improve the system
in the next 5-year national strategic plan.
Among the examples, Country A’s desired outcome may look

comprehensive with various key elements covered. However, some of
the pilot projects have shown that in the real situation, a focused and
simple outcome statement has been more effective in developing a
practical set of focused and measurable indicators. Therefore, if this
was the first attempt to develop food safety indicators, the
recommendation is to start from a simple and short outcome statement
that targets a clear goal for all. If the country has sufficient experience,
capacity and resources, it would be appropriate to aim at wider and
comprehensive goals.

2.6 Initiate the multiagency consultation process
2.6.1 Inform and involve relevant stakeholders
Food safety is a shared responsibility and trusted partnerships and
collaboration are keys to success. The same applies to developing
national food safety indicators. It is important to inform and involve
relevant stakeholders from the beginning of the process. Professors
and researchers from universities and research institutes would be
appropriate experts to bring into the process as they may already
have some relevant data that can be used to establish a baseline.
They could also be responsible for measuring the established indicators
over a period of time for trend analysis. Food businesses, private
sector and non-governmental organizations can be essential partners
in a collaborative effort to improve food safety practices. Consumer
groups have been a driving force in demanding safer food, and it is
important to listen to them. Indicator results can be a good tool for
communicating with consumers.
Representatives from different sectors and disciplines can play a part

in the process. The commitment to collaborative efforts is important in
data generation, collection, validation and analysis, and is instrumental
to ensure the acceptance of the results provided by the indicators.
The results would be used to prioritize and strengthen food safety
programmes and activities.
Box 4. Successful examples in involving stakeholders
Country A
In Country A, the development of national food safety indicators
involved the participation of stakeholders who have direct interests
in food safety, whether in the aspect of policy formulation,
regulations and their implementation, or food production,
distribution, and/or consumption. Consultations with food business
operators, food safety regulatory agencies, and other government
offices were essential in the development process. Three pilot
food safety indicators were developed through close and regular
coordination and consultation with people from a wide variety
of sectors, including experts from food business associations,
university professors, and several food safety regulatory agencies.
Country B
In Country B, because government agencies had a full agenda
for the pilot project period, several universities were invited to
take part in developing food safety indicators. For each pilot
indicator, a different university took the lead and developed precise
instructions in measuring indicators. The food safety competent
authority collected the results of the measurements and compiled
the report. It was an ideal assigning of roles, and Country B intends
to continue using this mechanism to continue monitoring the
established indicators.
2.6.2 Prepare for a kick-off meeting

2.6.2.1 Develop an agenda
An official kick-off meeting can be an effective way to developing
national food safety indicators, ensuring involvement and consultation
with relevant partners. It will most likely require a physical or a hybrid
(physical and virtual) format. The kick-off meeting can be used to
advocate for the idea of national food safety indicators. The gathering
could review the regional pool of food safety indicator areas (Box 1) to
jointly identify the priority areas for the country.

Box 5. Sample agenda for the kick-off meeting
• Agenda item 1: Concept of food safety indicators – differences

from other indicators, introduction of reference documents
including the relevant Codex guidelines.
• Agenda item 2: Formulation of the “technical working group”
and its terms of references.
• Agenda item 3: Finalization of the desired outcomes of
developing and using national food safety indicators.
• Agenda item 4: Discussion on the criteria to select/develop the
national indicators – the “SMART+UP” criteria (Table 1, section
2.7.3.) are recommended.
• Agenda item 5: Preliminary selection of food safety indicator
areas from the regional pool.
• Agenda item 6: Working group session to develop measurable
indicator(s) from the indicator area assigned to the group –
defining the measurement methods for each indicator. Indicators
should be measurable with the data that is readily available in the
country or that can be collected/calculated without a large-scale
preparation. The methods of measurement can also be identified:
such as 1–5 scales, yes/no, percentage, etc.
• Agenda item 7: Working group session to identify the source of
data needed for the measurement.
• Agenda item 8: Conclusions and next steps.
2.6.2.2 Initiate the formulation process of the technical

working group
During the kick-off meeting, one of the most important outputs would
be to establish a technical working group. This group would develop
practical indicators from the priority indicator areas upon which the
consultation meeting agrees. The technical working group may consist
of many experts from various sectors that can be nominated by their
managers. Therefore, an official invitation letter addressing the relevant
agencies/organizations/entities can be sent out prior to the kick-off
meeting (Box 6).
Box 6. P
oints to include in the invitation letter to nominate
experts of the technical working group
• Greetings and purpose of the letter;

• Background of the food safety indicators and references to the
international support they have received;
• Links to the work and mission of the agency the letter is
referred to;
• Invitation to nominate a technical expert;
• Deadline (if applicable);
• Attachment – draft terms of reference for the technical
working group.
The experts included in the technical working group would lead the
process of developing specific food safety indicators.

Box 7. Sample terms of reference for the technical working group
The technical working group, in consultation with the concerned

stakeholders throughout the project implementation, will undertake
the following tasks:
1. Be briefed on the food safety indicators project;
2. Guide the drafting process of specific food safety indicators;
3. Review the priority areas identified for the food safety indicators
using Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-based,
Time-bound (SMART) criteria, and ensure their usability to
monitor trends and progress in the project;
4. Ensure the alignment of the selected food safety indicators with
the overall objectives of the project;
5. Define the subjects to be measured through the food safety
indicators and/or identify the agencies that may play a leading
role in providing such measurements and in making data
available and accessible;
6. Identify the data or information set needed for each food
safety indicator by circulating survey questionnaires and guide
questions among stakeholders. Collect and review the responses
to determine the specific commodities with available and
accessible data and information.
2.6.2.3 Invite relevant experts and stakeholders

In addition to the core team members and technical working group
members, the kick-off meeting can be most effective if it includes
technical officers from relevant government agencies involved in food
safety topics, and stakeholders from the private sector, academia,
non-governmental organizations and consumer groups. In the pilot
projects, a total of 40–50 participants were most effective in reviewing
and discussing all the agenda items.
2.6.3 Conduct a kick-off meeting
The kick-off meeting can be facilitated by the core team members, and
can be used as the introductory forum to discuss the concept of food
safety indicators with all stakeholders. The technical working group can
be officially formed from among the nominated members and experts,
and its terms of reference officially adopted.
One of the main agenda items would be to review the draft of the
desired outcomes prepared by the core team. The draft could be
finalized by consensus among all participants. Once all participants have
become familiar with the concept and use of indicators, the regional
pool of 40 food safety indicators (Box 1) can be introduced, and a
preliminary selection of priority areas can be made. If the country is
developing food safety indicators for the first time, it is recommended
to select only 1–3 areas during the first phase. In order to prioritize an
area, it is essential to refer to the agreed outcome, and consider some
key food safety concerns in the country. In many developing countries,
it is normal that all food safety issues seem equally important. In this
case, it is useful to consider the current data availability and
feasibility/practicability of measurement so that it mitigates the risk
of creating overly ambitious indicators.
Once the priority indicator areas are selected, the participants can be
divided into several working groups to develop specific indicator(s).
Each working group can be led by a technical working group member
to draft specific indicator(s), considering immediate measurability
for the baseline data. If the indicator cannot be measured without a
large-scale action (i.e., survey, mission, analysis) then the indicator is
not yet “measurable” as the relevant data should already exist and be
obtainable. Once the draft indicator is developed, it is important to
note what kind of measurable data is available (in numerical scores
or categorical forms), who (what agency) has the data, who (what
agency) can access and interpret the data, and how the data can be
monitored and documented over time. Once these are defined, the
specific indicator can be drafted in a sentence (Box 8).
The kick-off meeting can conclude when a set of the first phase food
safety indicators has been drafted. The next set of actions would require
time to complete.

Box 8. Examples of draft indicators
Country A
• Food safety indicator area 14: number of food inspectors
(per population) trained in official food control.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 14: the number
of meat inspectors trained in official food control doing routine
inspections in licensed slaughterhouses in a specific region of
the country.
• Food safety indicator area 18: presence of and access to
accredited food testing laboratories with well-defined standard
operating procedures.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 18: the presence of
and access to an International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) 17025-accredited central food testing laboratory for
Chloramphenicol drug residue tests in shrimps for export.
• Food safety indicator area 31: all stakeholders from farm to fork,
including consumers, are reached in food safety information
activities and are aware of the potential problems and risks
related to hygiene and food safety.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 31: meat
stakeholders, including consumers, are reached with meat safety
information through printed materials and are aware of the
potential problems and risks related to meat hygiene and safety.
Country B
• Food safety indicator area 24: mechanisms are established
and functioning for detecting foodborne diseases and food
contamination.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 24: the completion
ratio of the investigations of foodborne outbreaks and
food-safety incidents through existing alert systems.
(Cont.)
• Food safety indicator area 30: risk-based education and trainings

for food business operators related to hygiene and food safety
are mandated and provided.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 30: the level of
knowledge retained after three months of trainings provided to
food handlers.
• Food safety indicator area 34: percentage of producers,
processors, traders and food business operators that have
implemented a functioning traceability system.
of egg retailers implementing a basic traceability
documentation system.
Country C
• Food safety indicator area 1: presence of a leading food safety
agency or entity to drive the coordination work to ensure
food safety.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 1: the level
of awareness on the competent food safety authority, through
a survey.
• Food safety indicator area 30: risk-based education and trainings
to food business operators related to hygiene and food safety
are mandated and provided.
or percentage of trained food handlers out of all licenced
food handlers.
• Food safety indicator area 38: levels of public trust in food safety.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 38: the level of
trust in the competent authority to manage food safety,
and the level of trust in the safety of food in the country,
through a survey.

(Cont.)
Country D
• Food safety indicator area 4: the presence of an enabling national
policy and a legal and regulatory framework that are consistent
with international standards, guidelines and best practices.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 4: level of
correspondence of food safety standards in terms of number
and content with those of the Codex Alimentarius system.
• Food safety indicator area 26: the number of outbreaks of
foodborne illnesses reported involving Salmonellosis and
Listeriosis in humans.
• Context-specific food safety indicator for area 26: the existence
of possible differences between the number of reported food
contaminations and the number of reported cases in humans of
Salmonella and Listeria.
2.7 Develop national food safety indicators

2.7.1 Document and share the finalized desired outcomes
for the country
Immediately after the kick-off meeting, the finalized desired outcome
statement can be fine-tuned using simple wordings. It can be clearly
documented and shared among the participants, partner agencies and
stakeholders so that the direction of the work is clear to all the relevant
parties. When finalizing the desired outcome(s), it is important not to
use vague words or phrases. The outcome statement shall be specific: it
is most useful when it is directly connected to the food safety indicators
to be developed. For example, if the desired outcome of developing
and using national food safety indicators is “to maintain consumers’
trust towards the national food control system,” then the target
audience is clearly consumers, and the indicators could contribute to
ensuring consumers’ trust. If the desired outcome of developing and
using national food safety indicators is “to identify priority food safety
problems in the country,” then the target audience is most likely the
food safety competent authorities and the indicators could contribute
to identifying priority food safety problems.
An ineffective example of a desired outcome statement would be to
set it too broadly, such as “to improve food safety situations.” Then,
it is difficult to specify the target audience, as the “improved food
safety situations” would benefit everyone. That makes it difficult to set
a direction for the indicator development process, because any actions
may be able to “improve food safety situations” in various sectors at
various levels.
2.7.2 Define the desired use of the results measured

by the indicators
The results obtained through the indicators may take the form of
numbers and percentages. They require thorough analysis to interpret
their real meaning and formulate next actions. Therefore, it is important
to define the desired use of the results.
For example, using the example of consumer trust in the previous

section, let us say that there is an annual consumer survey containing
a question about the level of trust in the food safety competent
authority to manage food safety risks. This year’s result was that 65
percent of the respondents trust the authority. A series of critical
questions then arises: does this represent the entire national population?
Is 65 percent good or bad? Is the number increasing or decreasing
annually? What should be done about the number? Is there anything
that needs to be done to further improve the number?
Interpretation and analysis of the results is another key element

that makes food safety indicators flexible for the different contexts
and situations. As the outcomes and methodologies chosen for the
measurements largely depend on the countries’ needs and objectives,
the results obtained through the measurements and how they are
used can also vary. In the example of consumer trust, if 65 percent is
considered to be good because it has significantly improved compared
to the previous year, then the follow-up actions can include reporting
the result to relevant people and stressing the progress. However,
if 65 percent were considered bad, then different types of actions
to improve the situation would need to follow. Therefore, the step of
interpreting the results is critical to their use.

Box 9. E
xamples of possible uses of the results of food
safety indicators
1. To communicate with stakeholders to engage in food

safety activities;
2. To communicate with the general public to improve the level of
trust in national food control systems;
3. To monitor trends or patterns for preparedness/improvement;
4. To provide information about any progress, achievement
obtained through indicators;
5. To verify the effectiveness and performance to report to
policy makers;
6. To identify serious gaps to request allocation of funding;
7. To identify training needs to develop better capacity
development programmes;
8. To identify areas for improvement to provide intervention ideas
and update programmes;
9. To assist internal or external auditors with
evidence-based information.
2.7.3 Review and refine the draft set of national

The draft set of national food safety indicators is a key output of the
kick-off meeting. The technical working group members can review all
the indicators one-by-one to check if each is in line with the desired
outcome and if they are measurable. It is important to keep in mind that
not all areas of food safety are easy to measure, and even if some data
is available, that does not mean it can represent the country situation.
A systematic set of criteria can be used to review the draft food safety
indicators. The regional consultation of the pilot project recommended
the SMART+UP criteria for that purpose.
Table 1. The SMART+UP criteria to select the national food
safety indicators
S Specific • Does the indicator provide specific (appropriate)

valuable information?
• Does the indicator provide useful information to
a specific target audience?
• Is the indicator clear, and not confusing to anyone?
M Measurable • Is it quantifiable in numerical scores

(numbers, percentages, etc.)?
• Does the indicator require certain appropriate
evidence/datasets?
• Are those evidence/datasets consistent?
A Achievable • Is it measurable right now (is the relevant data

already available)?
• Do you have the capacity to measure
the indicator?
• Does the indicator provide realistic information?
R Results-based • Does the indicator provide a certain direction

for improvement?
• Is it in line with the agreed-upon desired outcome?
• Does it contribute to achieving the objectives of
using the indicator?
T Time-bound • Can the indicator help achieve the goal in the

desired timeframe?
UP Improvement/ • Can the indicator be used repeatedly over time to

upward evaluate the trend or monitor the progress?
progress • Can the indicator be a good measure to
assess improvement?
2.7.4 Share and finalize the national food safety indicators

Once the technical working group has revised the indicators using
the SMART+UP criteria, each indicator can be put into the template
in Table 2. Some examples are also provided in Table 3 from the
pilot projects.

Table 2. An example template for the national food safety indicators
No. Item National food safety indicators
1. Indicator area (1–40) (Select from the Box 1)
2. Title of the indicator area (Select from the Box 1)
3. Title of the food

safety indicator
4. Data source
5. Data owner
6. Responsible person
(agency, entity, organization)
for measurement
7. Baseline (Put the baseline data with the date)
8. Interpretation of the
baseline data
9. Measuring methods
and approach
10. Target (quantifiable goal) (Put the desired target with the
future date)
Table 3. Examples of the finalised food safety indicators
from the pilot projects
Country A
1. Indicator area (1–40) 14
2. Title of the indicator area Number of food inspectors

(per population) trained in official
food control.
3. Title of the food The number of meat inspectors

safety indicator trained in official food control
conducting routine inspections
in licensed slaughterhouses in a
specific region of the country.
4. Data source College of Veterinary Public Health
5. Data owner College of Veterinary Public Health
6. Responsible person College of Veterinary Public Health

for measurement
7. Baseline In 2016, the ratio of trained meat

inspectors to licensed
slaughterhouses was calculated
as 2.42:1.
8. Interpretation of the There are not enough trained meat

baseline data inspectors compared to the number
of slaughterhouses.
9. Measuring methods The number of trained meat

and approach inspectors for each licensed
slaughterhouse is assessed in the
form of a ratio.
10. Target (quantifiable goal) Ratio of 3:1 by 2021

(Cont.)
Country B
2. Title of the indicator area Mechanisms are established and

functioning for detecting foodborne
disease and food contaminations.
3. Title of the food Food handlers’ food safety

safety indicator knowledge
4. Data source Agriculture and Food

Regulatory Authority
5. Data owner Agriculture and Food

Regulatory Authority
6. Responsible person Agriculture and Food

(agency, entity, organization) Regulatory Authority
for measurement
7. Baseline Ninety-four percent of trainees

scored higher than 70 on the
evaluation test at the end of the
training, but only 77 scored 70 three
months after the training.
8. Interpretation of the The validity of food handler’s

baseline data licenses in the country is too long:
trainings need to be organised in
modules, they must be made more
straightforward and the standard
exam should focus on the essentials.
9. Measuring methods Comparison of the scores on the

and approach evaluation test after the end of the
training and three months after the
training was provided.
10. Target (quantifiable goal) Ninety-four percent of the trainees

scored 70 in the evaluation test
three months after the training.
(Cont.)
Country C
2. Title of the indicator area Presence of a leading food safety

agency (entity) to drive the
coordination work to ensure
food safety.
3. Title of the food The level of awareness on the

safety indicator competent food safety authority,
through a survey.
4. Data source Ministry of Health
5. Data owner Ministry of Health
6. Responsible person Ministry of Health

for measurement
7. Baseline Seventy percent on 1 August 2019
8. Interpretation of the The level of awareness on the food

baseline data safety work of the authority needs
to be higher.
9. Measuring methods A survey among the population

and approach was administered.
10. Target (quantifiable goal) Ninety-five percent by

31 December 2019

(Cont.)
Country D
2. Title of the indicator area The presence of an enabling national

policy and a legal and regulatory
framework that are consistent with
international standards, guidelines
and best practices.
3. Title of the food The presence of an enabling national

safety indicator policy and a legal and regulatory
framework that are consistent with
international standards, guidelines
and best practices.
4. Data source Country Agricultural University
5. Data owner Ministry of Agriculture
6. Responsible person Country Agricultural University

for measurement
7. Baseline 1 260 national food safety standards
8. Interpretation of the The number aligns well with the

baseline data Codex Alimentarius standards.
9. Measuring methods Number and content of food safety

and approach standards are compared to those of
Codex Alimentarius.
10. Target (quantifiable goal) Maintain correspondence with the

Codex Alimentarius system in the
future scenario.
Once the indicators are developed, it is strongly recommended that
the set of indicators is shared with all the participants at the kick-off
meeting, relevant partner agencies and stakeholders. The use of food
safety indicators is most effective when all the parties are actively
engaged in the process. After collecting feedback, the national food
safety indicators can be finalized.
2.8 Measure the baselines

In order to compile baselines for measuring progress, some indicators
are simple enough that existing numbers can be taken from available
data. Using the previous example of consumer trust, it was simply
taken from the survey result, which was 65 percent. On the other hand,
there might be a need for further calculations to obtain the baseline.
For example, Country A has set an indicator as “the number of food
inspectors trained in official food control per licensed slaughterhouses,”
then, the baseline will become the ratio, not the total number of
inspectors (Box 10).
Box 10. B
aseline measurement for the indicator on the number
of food inspectors per slaughterhouse in Country A
Country A has piloted the implementation of the food safety

indicator #14: the number of food inspectors trained in official
food control. In particular, they aimed at increasing the number
of meat inspectors trained in official food controls inspecting in
the capitals’ slaughterhouses. To use such indicators effectively,
Country A decided to monitor the ratio of trained meat inspectors
per licensed slaughterhouses. This ratio was a data that could
provide comparisons over time to monitor the progress of the
implementation of the indicator. The baseline ratio of 2.42: 1 was
obtained using data from three years earlier. This ratio provided a
starting point upon which to measure progress in improving the
number of meat inspectors, and a basis upon which to set feasible
targets to achieved for the next 3–5 years (which were set as 3:1 for
the ratio of trained meat inspectors to licensed slaughterhouses,
and to 1:1 for the ratio of meat control officers to licensed
slaughterhouses).

2.8.1 Define the use of the baseline data
After the baseline measurement is obtained and documented, a series
of questions (Box 11) could be posed to clearly define the use of
the baseline data. If additional data is necessary the methodologies
for such collections can be identified. The choice of the data collected
may play a significant role in achieving the desired outcomes.
Box 11. Guiding questions to define the use of baseline data
• Are the indicator measurements comparable over time?

• Is it possible to keep the measuring conditions constant to have
reliable and comparable data?
• Are the sets of data obtained over time indicative of a trend or
a progress?
• Does the data provide an indication that represents the real
situation, and if the situation improves, would the data indicate
the improvement?
• What can we concretely measure and how can the data be
interpreted to explain the food safety situations?
• What are the possible validation methodologies to confirm the
correlations between the data and the food safety situations?
It is possible at this stage that the working group may realize that
a developed indicator may have a serious limitation for compiling a
baseline measurement (Box 12).
Box 12. B
aseline measurement for an indicator on the number
of outbreaks and food contamination cases in Country D
Country D chose to pilot the food safety indicator on the number of

reported Salmonellosis and Listeriosis cases. However, the number of
foodborne disease outbreaks can be a tricky indicator for measuring
the status of food safety because of under-reporting of cases. In this
example, the number of reported contaminations and the number
of reported outbreaks were measured. The numbers indicated
improvements in limiting contaminations from both microorganisms.
However, the technical working group concluded that apart from

the reported cases collected and counted by the surveillance
network, a larger number of unreported cases could actually exist.
Most foodborne disease outbreaks were reported by clinics,
hospitals and public health agencies. Yet, in most cases, when
the symptoms were not severe, the consumers would not go to
hospitals, creating an unknown number of unreported outbreaks,
which many experts believe to be a large number. It became evident
that the number of (reported) contaminations alone could not be
sufficient for monitoring progress on preventing Salmonellosis and
Listeriosis contaminations.
It could be tempting to use the number of food safety cases,

outbreaks and contamination cases as an indicator to represent
the food safety situation. However, this example demonstrates that
approach could lead to inaccurate results. Also, measuring the
number of contamination cases and outbreaks is heavily dependent
on financial and technical resources. Trying to measure such
phenomena when technical capacities are not yet proficient may
end up wasting resources without producing satisfactory results.
Basing food safety indicators on the number of cases, outbreaks
and contaminations is not recommended for most countries
where under-reporting is common.

2.8.2 Document the interpretation of the baseline data
Once the baseline measurement is made, the next step is to clearly
document what it means. In the previous example of consumer trust,
the baseline data was 65 percent. It is important to document what that
means. Depending on whether the figure is interpreted as good or bad,
then that interpretation will influence whether an action plan can be put
together and what desirable/expected future result would be set.
If the baseline measurement sets the overall direction of the work, the
subsequent data collection provides another reference to understand if
that direction is being followed. These data can be used as a way to flag
any necessary interventions or needs to be addressed as well as any
opportunities that can be taken in the use of food safety indicators.
2.8.3 Document the needs, opportunities and challenges

After the first set of measurements is complete, all the positive
experiences, challenges and lessons learned can be documented.
This can include the limitations regarding access to certain
datasets, identification of prerequisite activities prior to the baseline
measurement, non-practicality of the measurement, high-cost of
measurement and so forth (Box 13).
Box 13. A
lesson learned in realizing prerequisite activities
in Country B
Country B is heavily dependent on food imports. The safety of

imported foods is regarded as a priority. The country has initially
set a food safety indicator in the area of imported food control.
However, when the baseline measurement process started, the
technical working group realized that it first needed to conduct
a deep situation analysis of the country’s imported food control
system. The types of commodities imported and the amounts
of consignments were still unknown. Also, to effectively gather
measurements for the indicator, the technical working group realized
that an effective risk categorization of imported food was needed.
Inspecting all consignments was not realistic. Only after completing
those two activities could a feasible and meaningful indicator be
developed. This process led technical officers to drop the setting of
a food safety indicator in the area of imported food control. To make
effective use of resources, a comprehensive national situation report
on imported food control was conducted.
2.9 Conduct short-term interventions

If the baseline data and its interpretation have not been ideal, it is useful
to plan for a short-term intervention programme. The pilot projects
have demonstrated that often there is no need to plan a large-scale
intervention programme with a big budget. The indicator is set to be
extremely specific. Therefore, a small-scale targeted intervention often
works quite effectively.
For example, if surveys found that consumers’ trust towards food safety
competent authorities was lower than expected, then the first step for a
targeted intervention could be to find out why. If it has something to do
with communication with the general public, or the level of collaboration
with stakeholders, then an appropriate intervention could be to diversify
the channels used for food safety communications and information.

Setting a strict timeframe is essential in short-term intervention
planning. Because a small single indicator only shows data at a specific
time, taking too long to conduct an intervention would blur results, as
more time could allow other factors to possibly affect measurements or
outcomes. Pilot projects have generally taken three to eight months
to conduct an intervention to compare pre-intervention data and
post-intervention data. By taking this short-term approach, it is also
possible to identify potential pitfalls in the intervention programme
itself. Examples of short-term interventions conducted in pilot projects
are provided in Box 14.
Box 14. Examples of short-term interventions
Country A
When measuring the ratio of trained meat inspectors for licensed
slaughterhouses, country A noticed that even though that ratio
had improved over the years, the results were still unsatisfying.
Country A made a comparison with the inspection methods of
other countries, which led to the discovery of discrepancies, and
subsequently, to identifying gaps in the quality and competency of
the inspection services being provided. For this reason, the ideal
ratio to be achieved by using the measurements provided by the
food safety indicators was adjusted.
Country B
Country B developed a food safety indicator on the awareness of
food safety stakeholders. Despite the efforts of the food safety
officers, outreach through printed communications had declined
over the years. The reason for the decline was investigated. The
conclusion was that the dissemination methods were inadequate
for the size of the population. As a result, different communication
channels were identified, particularly social media, as tools to
increase communication outreach.
(Cont.)
Country C
In Country C, a survey determined that 70 percent of the
population were unsure about whom they should contact in case
of a suspected food safety issue, and which agency is responsible
for food safety. An investigation was conducted to find the reasons.
Investigators determined there was an insufficient number of
communication campaigns and not enough collaboration
among stakeholders. This intervention led to increased
collaboration among food safety agencies and to a ramping up
of communications to ensure that the population has greater
awareness and the information it needs.
2.10 Measure the post-intervention data

The same approach and methodologies that were used to obtain
the baselines shall be used to measure the post-intervention data.
For example, if a survey was used to measure consumer trust in
food safety competent authorities, use the same survey with the
same questions. This would help to understand if the changes in
disseminating food safety communications and information had any
impact. The periodic regular measurement of an indicator will
eventually generate a trend analysis, providing another good reason
to consistently conduct measurements.
In addition, it is also useful to measure specific effects of new

interventions. In the example of consumer trust and the intervention
of improved provision of food safety information to stakeholders,
statistics measuring the provision of food safety information can be
useful in understanding if the intervention is achieving its goal. That
measurement is unlikely to show a direct correlation with consumer
trust, but the data would be essential in evaluating the effectiveness of
the intervention.

2.11 Interpret the data and develop action plans
Comparing baseline and post-intervention measurements often provides
an understanding about whether the short-term intervention had a
significant impact, some impact or no impact. Even in a short period
of time, some interventions have worked well and pilot countries have
been able to scale them up into larger programmes. Since relevant
quantifiable data provided evidence of improvement, the scale-up
proposals were well received. If the results of the comparison had not
shown significant improvement, then a different type of intervention
would have needed to be planned.
All the considerations from this process can be officially documented,

with the record serving as a future reference. The usefulness of the
indicators, effectiveness of the short-term interventions, challenges
encountered throughout the process, and the success of the
interventions can be recorded so that the food safety indicators would
remain as regular indicators, without requiring too much resources.
The periodic measurement of such indicators is an opportunity
to gauge progress towards achieving the desired outcomes.
3 Reporting and
communicating the results
The results of the food safety indicators can often provide the basis
of a good set of communication materials. The indicators provide an
evidence-based and reliable source of information because they are
specific, results-based, and obtained through a systematic approach.
The results can be disseminated to stakeholders and the general
public. If stakeholders need to improve any areas, information can be
directly targeted to the specific audience. The goal of the improvement
can be clearly set based on the indicators. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that a series of communication materials be developed
based on the indicator measurements and results, in addition to the
official reporting of the results.

4 Key considerations
4.1 Tailor the indicators to fit to the country context

The pilot projects on food safety indicators in four countries provided
useful insights that could apply to other countries. All four countries
confirmed that the use of food safety indicators has real potential to
improve their food safety situations, if the indicators are tailored to
their country contexts. Food safety indicators may be used for different
purposes. There is no right or wrong. For example, Country A used them
to identify the key food safety problems for the purpose of capacity
development, while Country B used them as a tool to evaluate the
national food control systems.
4.2 Start with a few indicators

When starting work on developing food safety indicators, it is important
not to be overambitious. Rather, focus on indicators that are already
measurable without large-scale actions. Establishing indicators can be
an eye-opening exercise. Many pilot projects encountered challenges
in accessing the relevant data and conducting practical measurements.
In the initial phase, one to five indicators can be a good number to start
with. There is always an opportunity to scale up.
43
4.3 Do not compare the results with other countries
The regional pool of 40 indicator areas is designed to be scalable to
different national contexts and specific situations. The list of indicator
areas aims to provide the set of aspects that can be considered
from each country to explore more deeply and possibly build upon.
Because each country can establish specific food safety indicators, it is
important to note that the indicators used by different countries should
not be compared. The indicators are neither a scoring system nor as a
benchmark for country comparisons. As the word suggests, they only
indicate something and they only register information.
4.4 Be aware of a possible pitfall

Pilot projects found that certain indicators are not suitable to illustrate
the actual food safety situation. These include the number of foodborne
disease cases, outbreaks and contamination cases. For example, if a
given country does not have an effective disease surveillance system
for foodborne diseases, then the country may not have any data, except
for ad hoc reports from a few hospitals. This means the number of
reported foodborne diseases in the country could be deceptively low.
It does not necessarily mean that the country has a low number of
foodborne disease cases. Be aware of such pitfalls when choosing
which numbers or data sets to use for indicators.

4.5 Make use of additional benefits from
developing indicators
The process of developing food safety indicators has several
additional benefits that produce immediate improvements in national
food safety work. The pilot projects demonstrated many of these
additional benefits:
• understanding current situations;
• monitoring effectiveness and progress;
• prioritizing activities;
• allocating proper resources;
• identifying gaps;
• supporting evidence-based decision-making;
• developing effective communication and advocacy materials.
In some countries, the national food control system is not yet ready
for food safety indicators to show results and progress. Nonetheless,
the process of developing an indicator can still be fruitful. Through the
indicator setting process people can be brought together, immediate
needs can be further identified, and competent authorities can better
focus on actionable priorities. All of that contributes to improving the
food control system.
4.5.1 The process helps multisectoral collaboration

on food safety
The indicator development process requires inputs from various people
and sources. Several multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary teams can
be formulated along the way. The process also reveals what is missing
in the food safety situations even before measuring the indicator.
It leads people to focus on immediate and feasible actions to improve
the situation.
Key considerations 45
In Country A, the selection of the priority indicators was done through
a consultation meeting with many different government agencies and
stakeholders, including the private sector and academia. This fostered
multisectoral collaborations. Fifty-eight participants from the various
sectors gained an awareness of how the indicators work in improving
the situation. They acquired an understanding that data from multiple
sources were needed to produce the target indicators. By the end
of the consultation meeting, participants formed multi-sectoral and
multidisciplinary teams to work on respective indicators.
4.5.2 The process helps identify concrete

prerequisite activities
The indicators-setting process requires participants to focus on what
can actually be achieved within the national food safety context, which
can lead to in-depth analyses of key requirements. In Country B, the
process of developing an indicator on food import controls highlighted
the need for a preliminary assessment on the subject. Country B is
heavily dependent on food imports, and introducing a food safety
indicator would be of great help. Some commodities are subject to a
ban in Country B, and food control activities linked to those bans took a
substantial amount of time for food safety officers. As a result, officers
in Country B realized that a situation analysis of the country’s imported
food control needed to be conducted. Following that, an effective risk
categorization of food hazards based on the FAO “Risk based imported
food controls manual” (FAO, 2016b) could be carried out using a good
set of criteria. Only after undertaking these actions could a feasible and
meaningful indicator for food imports controls be set.

4.5.3 The process helps focus on the reality
The process of setting food safety indicators can lead to the
understanding of the limitations of the national food safety competent
authorities, and to identifying methods to overcome those limitations. In
Country B, the process of selecting indicators led to the realization that
the most efficient actions government’s food safety officers can take is
to delegate food safety checking mechanisms and sharing responsibility
for food safety. While identifying the food safety indicators areas to
focus on, the food safety officers found that food businesses operators
had no self-checking mechanism. Having one would greatly contribute
to the country’s food safety. To complement the development of food
safety indicators, Country B decided to introduce the concept of a food
safety culture in their national food control system with strong support
from the high-level officials.
The hard reality is that it is not realistic to plan for the government
to check everything, and for inspectors to examine every single food
item in the country. If a food safety culture exists, people who produce,
transport, store, sell, process, serve and consume food will be aware that
food safety is everyone’s responsibility. In particular, in food businesses,
an established self-checking system is extremely valuable, and the
inspectors/regulators can function as advisors rather than as police.
Recognizing those benefits, several food entrepreneurs formed
a “Food Innovation Group” that works with the government to develop
key food safety messages for dissemination among food businesses.
5 Global applications
and SDGs relevance
Food safety indicators provide a systematic and constructive approach

to national food safety work that is not invasive to existing systems
and that can be tailored to specific needs and contexts. Food safety
indicators are the product of an approach or a methodology that does
not aim at achieving specific results or numbers, but to sustainably
support countries in achieving their food safety goals. The results
obtained by such indicators can be used for national policy
development and they can support project proposals for food
safety improvements.
As demonstrated in the pilot projects, food safety indicators provide

the opportunity for countries to build sustainable capacities that start
from using existing resources and that do not need substantial funding.
Instead, they require targeted interventions. It is a method that enables
each country to work on particular areas of food safety without the
external pressure of achieving international benchmark values. It enables
food safety competent authorities to independently take control of the
national food safety work.
As described throughout this guide, food safety indicators can be a

strategic and sustainable mechanism to improve food safety, because
the data they provide is the result of a scientific and systematic
approach. The data accurately describes the country situation. It is
objective but tailored to the country context. It can be used as a reliable
source to communicate with external stakeholders. The descriptions
obtained through such data would be unique for each country, but
would be well-grounded, evidence-based starting points for improving
food safety.

Food safety is one of the key areas of the 2030 Agenda for the
Sustainable Development Goals. Safe food directly contributes to the
attainment of all SDGs. It is integral to SDG 3 (good health and
well-being). It has a significant influence on SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2
(zero hunger), and SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation). It contributes to
SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth),
SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 10 (reduced
inequalities), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12
(responsible consumption), SDG 14 (life below water), SDG 15 (life on
land). It is a minor consideration in attaining SDG 4 (quality education),
SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 16
(peace, justice and strong institutions) (Grace, 2019).
The fact that food safety is linked to so many SDGs shows that it is a
truly cross-cutting area. Food safety indicators, therefore, can be used
as a tool to collaborate with various partners who play roles in the
2030 Agenda. Furthermore, the scalability of food safety indicators
makes them ripe for implementation at the global scale. This guide was
created to provide each country with the information it needs to begin
the process of developing food safety indicators. As a leader in the area
of food safety, FAO will continue to support its member countries that
request assistance in this area. Through food safety indicators, FAO
aims at providing them with a functional tool to ensure that safe food is
achievable for all.
6 References
FAO. 2012. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 [online]
[Cited 22 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/i3027e/i3027e00.pdf
[Cited 22 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3434e.pdf
[Cited 22 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/i4030e/i4030e.pdf
[Cited 22 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/i4646e/i4646e.pdf
FAO. 2016a. Compendium of indicators for nutrition-sensitive agriculture
[online]. [Cited 21 November 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6275e.pdf
FAO. 2016b. Risk based imported food controls manuals [online].
[Cited 22 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/i5381e/I5381E.pdf
FAO. 2017. Meeting Proceedings Regional consultation on food safety
indicators for Asia and the Pacific [online]. [Cited 21 November 2020].
http://www.fao.org/3/i9459en/I9459EN.pdf
FAO. 2020. Food security indicators – In: FAO [online].
[Cited 21 November 2020]. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/
essfadata/en/#.X7jTBGgzY2w.
FAO & WHO. 2013. Principles and Guidelines for national food control
systems [online]. [Cited 21 November 2020].
http://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/13358/CXG_082e.pdf
51
FAO & WHO. 2017. Principles and Guidelines for monitoring the
performance of national food control systems [online].
[Cited 21 November 2020]. http://www.fao.org/fao-
whocodexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252F
workspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%
2B91-2017%252FCXG_091e.pdf
Grace, D. 2017. Food safety and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. [also available at https://cgspace.cgiar.org/
bitstream/handle/10568/100694/SDGs%20and%20food%20safety.
pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y]
WHO. 2005. IHR (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Joint
External Evaluation tool (JEE tool) first edition [online].
[Cited 21 November 2020]. http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/204368/1/9789241510172_eng.pdf?ua=1

Measuring food safety
Indicators to achieve sustainable
development goals (SDGs)
9
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

CB4111EN/1/04.21
FAO-RAP@fao.org
fao.org/asiapacific
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Bangkok, Thailand

Measuring Food Safety Indicators To Achieve Sustainable Development Goals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Food Safety Indicators To Achieve Sustainable Development Goals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The regional guide to develop food safety indicators aims to provide

3. Reporting and communicating the results 42

5. Global applications and SDG relevance 48

Measuring food safety –​

We gratefully acknowledge the technical inputs provided by various FAO

Measuring food safety –​

A good example of effective indicators is the suite of food security

1.2 What are food safety indicators

In Codex Alimentarius’s “Principles and guidelines for monitoring the

Measuring food safety –​

Along with Codex Alimentarius, the World Health Organization

In 2017, FAO conducted an initial consultation on the establishement

1.3 Objectives of the guide

Measuring food safety –​

1.5 Effective use of the guide

2.1 Formulate a core team

2.2 Review the regional pool

Each core team member conducts an individual review, then engages

Measuring food safety –​

Food safety competent authorities and partners

Codex and functions with other international bodies

10. Ability to meet and demonstrate compliance with international

Measuring food safety –​

Support to self-checking systems

Data collection, collation and interpretation

Shared responsibility – industry, producers, processors, food

Measuring food safety –​

Public trust in food safety

2.3 Collect key references

Legislative references from relevant national laws and regulations as

Understanding the underlying principles behind the national and

FAO food security indicators (FAO, 2020), available at

Compendium of indicators for nutrition-sensitive agriculture

Measuring food safety –​

Make their management aware Refer to international guidance

Demonstrate through the collected Establish partnerships with

Develop a work plan of activities

Support could be demonstrated through a signed letter or document

2.5.2 Draft a few options for a proposed desired outcome

Measuring food safety –​

Among the examples, Country A’s desired outcome may look

Measuring food safety –​

Representatives from different sectors and disciplines can play a part

2.6.2 Prepare for a kick-off meeting

Measuring food safety –​

• Agenda item 1: Concept of food safety indicators – differences

2.6.2.2 Initiate the formulation process of the technical

• Greetings and purpose of the letter;

Measuring food safety –​

The technical working group, in consultation with the concerned

2.6.2.3 Invite relevant experts and stakeholders

Measuring food safety –​

• Food safety indicator area 30: risk-based education and trainings

Measuring food safety –​

2.7 Develop national food safety indicators

2.7.2 Define the desired use of the results measured

For example, using the example of consumer trust in the previous

Interpretation and analysis of the results is another key element

Measuring food safety –​

1. To communicate with stakeholders to engage in food

2.7.3 Review and refine the draft set of national

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

2.2 Review the regional pool

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

2.6.2.2 Initiate the formulation process of the technical

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

2.7.2 Define the desired use of the results measured

Measuring food safety –

2.7.3 Review and refine the draft set of national

2.7.4 Share and finalize the national food safety indicators

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –

Measuring food safety –